Folau’s actions affect others

marketing and communications specialist

Sometimes I’d like to dye my hair purple, wear sparkly green tights and sing loudly in the street. But I don’t – y’know why? It would impact badly on my reputation or, as marketers call it, my personal brand. But even more importantly to me than that, my inappropriate behaviour would impact on the reputation of those around me. My kids would be shamed, my husband embarrassed, my clients wouldn’t work with me and my fellow board members would rightly claim I was damaging their organisation’s brand.

I’d love to do and say as I please, but by committing to jobs, clients, boards and even family, I have to respect the impact my behaviour has on others and their reputations.

Sometimes it’s not easy to predict how what we do will affect others; other times it’s obvious. Like posting on social media that ‘‘hell awaits drunks, homosexuals, adulterers’’.

Yes, I’m talking about former Wallabies rugby star Israel Folau and that controversial sacking from his A$4 million (NZ$4.2m) Rugby Australia contract after his social media post. And the continued controversy when he chose to seek financial support through crowd funding for legal fees to fight back, claiming discrimination on religious grounds.

Folau clearly believes what he says, and yes, there is a thing called freedom of speech, but surely he has a moral obligation to consider how his actions might damage the reputation of the individuals or organisations he is associated with. For a start, he’s a role model as a famous rugby player and the only reason he has a platform to speak from is because he was hired by Rugby Australia.

His post and subsequent behaviour have certainly impacted the reputation and brand of Rugby Australia, which could potentially face financial ruin if forced to face a projected loss as well as pay out the A$4m Folau claims he’s owed.

Secondly, he has a high-profile wife, Maria, herself a top sportswoman, who is now in the spotlight after reposting links to his fundraising campaign. Whether she speaks in support of him or not, her husband’s actions have impacted on her life, her reputation and brand. The media has even been running polls asking whether she should be sanctioned.

Then there’s brand damage fallout for the crowd-sourcing company that felt compelled to ditch Folau’s fundraising efforts and return all the money to save its own reputation. There’s the reputation of the new company that picked up the campaign but put a pause on the fundraising after it amassed more than A$2m and questions were asked about how much Folau really needed, given his reported earnings and property portfolio.

We claim to have freedom of speech, but our ability to freely express a view is compromised by our relationships with those around us. We are locked inside the norms of society and, hopefully, respect for each other. We are not islands. All our actions are interwoven, and what we do and say impacts on others.

Strangely, many think social media has given them more freedom to post messages they would never dare say face-to-face. If Folau’s comments represent a new concept of freedom of speech, then those around him may well desire censorship.

He has a very clear brand and values, but has he taken a moment to consider the damage he has done to other reputations? What impact was he seeking and was it really worth it?

In comparison, perhaps dyeing your hair purple and wearing sparkly green tights isn’t such a bad idea. I’ll talk to the family.